ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2026
A scoping review of quality prescribing indicators, rules and criteria for primary care.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A scoping review of quality prescribing indicators, rules and criteria for primary care.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Medication-related problems (MRPs) place a substantial burden on the healthcare system, contributing to hospital admissions and significant healthcare costs. Quality prescribing indicators (QPIs), rules and criteria serve to educate prescribers about high risk MRPs and to monitor prescribing behaviours. This study aims to summarize existing indicators, rules and criteria for quality prescribing of medicines in primary care. Four databases (OVID-MEDLINE, OVID-Embase, EBSCOhost-PsycINFO and ProQuest-International Pharmaceutical Abstracts) were searched for studies published between 2000 and 2025, across three intersecting areas: (i) general or family practice setting, (ii) prescriptions/medicines/medication/drugs and (iii) quality indicators/rules/best practice. Artificial intelligence software ASReview® assisted by prioritizing titles and abstracts for screening. To be included, the manuscript had to describe the development of novel rules relevant to primary care settings, be specific to medications or conditions and not address the general writing of a prescription. Of the 41 962 papers identified, 1859 were title and abstract screened by the review team before reaching our threshold of 420 consecutively irrelevant papers. Full-text review of 133 papers, including 11 reviews of QPIs, resulted in 1486 prescribing rules, covering 54 therapeutic areas, being extracted. Most studies focused on older patients, only three specified they were applicable to a general adult population and six focused on specific medical conditions. Therapeutic groups with the most rules were psychoanaleptics, psycholeptics and antithrombotic agents. This review highlights the breadth of prescribing rules, limited methodological diversity and the need for future research to optimize emerging therapies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.